User talk:Rkitko

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Feed the Nepenthes
Nepenthes villosa Macfarlane illustration without text.jpg
2006: February to December
Now archived quarterly:
2007: 1st • 2nd • 3rd • 4th
2008: 1st • 2nd • 3rd • 4th
2009: 1st • 2nd • 3rd • 4th
2010: 1st • 2nd • 3rd • 4th
2011: 1st • 2nd • 3rd • 4th
2012: 1st • 2nd • 3rd • 4th
2013: 1st • 2nd • 3rd • 4th


Hi there

You undid a revision of mine on Heliamphora, citing that the geo info is already in the infobox, so there would be no need for the category. But that was not the reason I did it; it's my understanding that the category permit us to list all pages under it, so, in order to list all South American carnivores, the article must be part of that category, right? I do not want to be rude, and I know I'm not a frequent user or anything, but unless there's a previous rule I'm not aware (and I admit that's quite possible), I don't think that a revert was necessary...

Jack O'Neill (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! So sorry if my edit summary was hard to understand -- there's only so much space for a concise explanation. To clarify, every article in Category:Heliamphora is already included in the categorization hierarchy that you added to Heliamphora because Category:Heliamphora is already a subcategory of Category:Carnivorous plants of South America. Because the geographic category contains the genus category, it is unnecessary and redundant to add Category:Carnivorous plants of South America to the article page, as well. We only operate this way when the whole genus is endemic to that region; e.g. we couldn't do this for Drosera since it's so widespread, so instead each species article gets the geographic category. I hope that makes sense -- it's a bit late for me and I'm not exactly writing clearly at the moment :-) Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, that's much more clear. Glad I've put that "something-I'm-not-aware-quite-possibly" bit, since I do misunderstood the category system after all. Thank you for this clarification, and sorry about the bitterness of my last message - I see It had no reason to be ;-) Jack O'Neill (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
No worries. I'm just glad someone is working on the carnivorous plant articles. Lots of room for improvement here! If there's ever anything I can help with, let me know. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Trees of Ukraine[edit]

Hello! I study of woody plants at home! Why Some species of trees that we grow hto cleans from the category. I created a new category of trees Ukraine. I flora Ukraine and delete them Tavlya in this category Trees of Ukraine . Subsumes only woody plants. That grow with us in the Ukraine in the Parks, forests, city. Garden will not include. Sincerely, Vitaly!

Dipodium and Kew[edit]

Hi once again, I have received a message via Wikispecies from Orchi (talk). There is definite interest at Kew about your work on Dipodium and to cut a long story short they seem to be willing to talk to you about your results and I guess modify WCSP and other databases at the very least. This all started when I mentioned our earlier Dipodium conversation to Orchi, who is very active on WS particularly Orchidaceae, as you can see with a couple of clicks.
Philip Cribb is Orchi's direct contact, but he has suggested that Andre Schuiteman is the person to contact at Kew, as he now heads this section. Orchi can provide an email contact if needed and I am sure that you two ought to talk anyway. Well over to you in the spirit of six degrees of separation. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Drosera by synonymy[edit]

Category:Drosera by synonymy, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Plants etc by year of first description[edit]

Re Category:Plants described in 1753 being in both the decade and century categories, a decade of 10 years is too small to be convenient; which is why for countries the year eg Category:1864 in Australia is in both Category:1860s in Australia and in Category:Years of the 19th century in Australia so that the latter category displays all of the years for a century. Perhaps just delete the intermediate “decade” categories? Hugo999 (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Drosera rotundifolia[edit]

hello buddy, I have reverted your reversion :P. You said that the change is not supported in the body of the article, that's true. But Im basing my category additions on this list which is sourced. Have a nice day. -Elias Z 10:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think, for a category to be included it must be mentioned in the article and well-sourced. As List of plants of Lebanon already exists, it is unnecessary to duplicate that effort in the category. And since this is a widely-distributed species, we only need include the highest level category that approximately corresponds to its natural range. This prevents too many categories from being included and stems against arguments to delete all state/province/country categories. Those smaller geographic categories are used mostly for endemics and species that occur in only a few countries. Wikipedia flora categories should strive to follow the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions -- see WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD for an outline of the unfinished work. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Understood, thanks -Elias Z 05:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Plant Categories[edit]

I noticed you have recently edited a number of plant's category listings. As wikipedia isn't strictly a plant database as defined in the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions but rather an encyclopedia, I don't see the appropriateness of trying to strictly follow those guidelines. Rather, the removing of these categories makes the pages bit less useful IMHO.

For example, if I'm interested in trees native to a particular state and I go to the category Trees of <insert state name>, I will not find a large number of trees native to that state as you've removed those categories from a number of plants. Now that category becomes largely useless. Further on plant pages without the benefit of distribution maps, it becomes quite unclear in which areas or states plants are indeed native.

If you want to follow the guidelines laid out in the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions in the distribution sections of those particular plants, then that may be more appropriate than wholesale removing of categories from plant pages, but even then that convention allows for the mentioning of states when listing a plants distribution as is noted, only used for very large countries, which the United States indeed is. Even the Flora of North America North of Mexico as well as the Flora of China both list states/provinces when describing plant distributions. Kmanblue (talk) 08:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kmanblue: see WP:SUBCAT – "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category". It's not clear to me why "trees of ..." would be an exception. You always need to work up the category hierarchy to check for all entries. So, for example, to find those trees categorized as native to Quebec, you go to Category:Trees of Quebec, then to Category:Trees of Canada, then to Category:Trees of North America, etc. Of course, the quality of the categorization in Wikipedia is such that it's doubtful that all or even most trees native to Quebec or anywhere else will be correctly categorized! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: That's fine that a page should rarely be placed both in a category and a subcategory. I understand that, but that's not the case for many of these plant pages. Also, your last point illustrates my point. Shouldn't the Category:Trees of Quebec contain all the trees known(on wikipedia) to be native to Quebec? Otherwise, if one is looking for an encyclopedic listing of trees native to Quebec, then wikipedia is just about useless in this regard. Especially if said trees are instead merely listed as Category:Trees of Canada or Category:Trees of North America as those are such broad categories they list large numbers of trees not only not native to Quebec but in many cases trees native thousands of miles (or km if you prefer) and a few countries away from Quebec. That seems like we are unnecessarily making things more confusing and less accurate for the sake of trying to make the categories section look nicer. Kmanblue (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of the category system is described at WP:CAT as "to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages" not to provide a substitute for "List of ..." articles. If you want a list of trees for a particular political or geographical entity, then create a list article. Anyway, no more hijacking of Rkitko's talk page from me! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Kmanblue, I agree with Peter on this. Categories are not meant to take the place of lists. If we don't follow the strict hierarchy of the WGSRPD and include species with wide distributions at the highest category level (regions, large countries, and continents) that closely approximates the distribution, we risk losing the entire flora category hierarchy. There are folks out there nominating fauna categories for deletion -- mostly in Europe -- with silly notions that it's not WP:DEFINING. They also complain about WP:OVERCAT and category clutter, produced from being included in too many small level categories. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 18#Category:Amphibians of Albania for one open discussion like this. The best way for flora projects to argue against deletionists like that is to have a clear categorization hierarchy, one that reduces category clutter by using regional categories and is not defined by political boundaries but rather geography. By the way, most "Trees of..." categories will likely be deleted as there are very few tree taxa limited to a few states or provinces, thus falling under WP:SMALLCAT -- we can maintain the regional categories, such as Trees of the Northeastern United States. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Revert on carnivorous plant[edit]


This is a recent endemic specie (2003)

Rivadavia F (2003). [http:// "Four New Species of Sundews, Drosera (Droseraceae), from Brazil"] (HTML). Carnivorous Plant Newsletter 32 (3): 79–92. 

I would include this... but ok, ty

I'm tired of wiki

Lauro Sirgado (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, @Lauro Sirgado:. Just to be clear, I reverted the edit because MOS:IMAGELOCATION suggests we avoid sandwiching the text of the article between two elements like the video and the image you added. Additionally, the article carnivorous plant is already well-illustrated. I will add your image to List of Drosera species. We don't yet have an article on Drosera tentaculata but we should! And your image would fit quite well there. Why not take the time to write the article on the species? Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
03:22, 4 June 2014‎ Rkitko (talk | contribs)‎ . . (69,494 bytes) (-143)‎ . . (Undid revision 611470107 by Lauro Sirgado (talk) - not the best image to illustrate this article; already well-illustrated, also we're not to sandwich text between media like that) (undo | thank)
The reasons do not seem strong (sry my opinion).
Only stub are open for editions? I stop my editions.
Do not want to get into edit wars and Manors.
leave for others
thank you
Lauro Sirgado (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: page on epiphyllum oxypetalum[edit]

Hi Ryan:

Thank you for rewriting the introductory paragraph for the page on epiphyllum oxypetalum. I am not a botanist. I became interested in 昙花, and found this wikipedia page on epiphyllum oxypetalum. The sentence about this species is not a variety of nightblooming cereus is very confusing as it directly links to the page on nightblooming cereus, which lists epiphyllum oxypetalum as one of the species. So I removed the word "not" in that sentence for its logical contradiction. Thank you for the rephrasing the sentence. It is a lot more clear now.

Minghua — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minghuanie (talkcontribs) 00:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Flora of the San Francisco Bay Area[edit]

I was not aware we used that system officially at WP. your turning this into a redirect lost the area specific categorization for the plants that ONLY have distribution in the bay area, at least according to the articles. You could have at least decided to placed them in Category:Environment of the San Francisco Bay Area. I dont see why this information on bay native plants needs to be lost here, especially as the local environmental movement has been massively focussed on bay native ecology for something like half a century.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I see we have Category:Flora by distribution categories that follow the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, an administrative category. how is that category to define what other categories we have, and why have decided unilaterally to remove smaller categories, and redefine what "flora of california" means. i see the value in using this WGS scheme, but we are not the WGS. was there a discussion somewhere implementing this decision?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm currently rolling out the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions as a continuing effort to clean up the proliferation of these overlapping and unnecessary categories. (For more info, see WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD.) Many fauna categories are under discussion for deletion and merging upward, mostly be editors concerned with European countries (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 19#Category:Insects of Andorra, for example). This category purging in the fauna categories also happened in 2007. As a way to justify our flora category structure, a few members of the WP:PLANTS project decided to use a published hierarchy for recording plant distributions that's used in other secondary sources, such as GRIN. While I agree that California is a large and varied area with many endemic species restricted to small and well-defined regions, I'm not certain we could justify sub-areas in the category tree. Categories are for navigation and browsing; what you seem to want would best be served by a List of plants of the San Francisco Bay Area (or perhaps already mostly exists as List of San Francisco Bay Area wildflowers), which can include red links to plants we don't yet have articles on and references. Flora of the Santa Monica Mountains is a decent template for such a list article.
If you're interested in creating the list article, here's the list of articles that was included in the category before redirection:
Vitis californica, Viola pedunculata, Vicia hassei, Verbena lasiostachys, Vaccinium parvifolium, Vaccinium ovatum, Vaccinium cespitosum, Triphysaria floribunda, Trifolium wormskioldii, Trifolium obtusiflorum, Toxicodendron diversilobum, Thermopsis californica, Streptanthus niger, Streptanthus batrachopus, Solidago canadensis, Solidago californica, Solanum douglasii, Sidalcea hickmanii, Sanicula arguta, Sambucus cerulea, Ribes victoris, Ribes sanguineum, Ribes menziesii, Rhus trilobata, Quercus wislizeni, Quercus agrifolia, Pseudognaphalium californicum, Potentilla hickmanii, Populus fremontii, Polypodium scouleri, Polypodium glycyrrhiza, Pluchea odorata, Pleuropogon californicus, Plagiobothrys chorisianus, Pityopus, Piperia transversa, Phoradendron macrophyllum, Phacelia viscida, Phacelia phacelioides, Phacelia malvifolia, Phacelia douglasii, Phacelia divaricata, Phacelia ciliata, Phacelia californica, Phacelia breweri, Pedicularis densiflora, Paronychia franciscana, Papaver californicum, Orobanche californica, Oenothera californica, Navarretia rosulata, Navarretia hamata, Monardella viridis, Minuartia pusilla, Minuartia douglasii, Minuartia californica, Microseris sylvatica, Microseris paludosa, Microseris elegans, Microseris douglasii, Mentzelia micrantha, Mentzelia lindleyi, Mentzelia dispersa, Mentzelia affinis, Marah oreganus, Malacothamnus fremontii, Malacothamnus fasciculatus, Malacothamnus davidsonii, Madia anomala, Lupinus truncatus, Lupinus hirsutissimus, Lupinus albifrons, Lomatium repostum, Lithophragma cymbalaria, Lilium pardalinum subsp. pitkinense, Lessingia micradenia, Layia platyglossa, Layia hieracioides, Layia gaillardioides, Lasthenia conjugens, Lasthenia burkei, Juncus phaeocephalus, Juglans hindsii, Iris fernaldii, Horkelia californica, Holocarpha virgata, Holocarpha macradenia, Holocarpha heermannii, Heteromeles, Hesperolinon micranthum, Hesperolinon congestum, Euphorbia spathulata, Erysimum franciscanum, Erigeron supplex, Erigeron foliosus, Encelia californica, Elymus elymoides, Elymus californicus, Ehrendorferia chrysantha, Dudleya lanceolata, Dudleya cymosa, Dryopteris arguta, Douglas fir, Dodecatheon clevelandii, Dittrichia graveolens, Dendromecon rigida, Delphinium parryi, Delphinium nudicaule, Delphinium californicum, Deinandra bacigalupii, Cyperus eragrostis, Cuscuta salina, Cuscuta pacifica, Coreopsis hamiltonii, Collinsia multicolor, Clarkia purpurea, Clarkia franciscana, Clarkia biloba, Cirsium quercetorum, Cirsium occidentale, Cirsium hydrophilum, Cirsium fontinale, Cirsium douglasii, Cirsium andrewsii, Chorizanthe valida, Chorizanthe robusta, Chorizanthe cuspidata, Chlorogalum pomeridianum, Cephalanthera austiniae, Ceanothus masonii, Ceanothus jepsonii, Ceanothus gloriosus, Ceanothus foliosus, Caulanthus coulteri, Castilleja neglecta, Castilleja foliolosa, Castilleja exserta, Castilleja attenuata, Camissonia strigulosa, Calystegia subacaulis, Calystegia purpurata, Calystegia occidentalis, Calystegia malacophylla, Calystegia longipes, Calycadenia multiglandulosa, Calochortus tolmiei, Calochortus tiburonensis, Calochortus splendens, Calochortus luteus, Calochortus clavatus, California buttercup, Calamagrostis ophitidis, Brodiaea terrestris, Brodiaea appendiculata, Blepharizonia plumosa, Blennosperma bakeri, Balsamorhiza macrolepis, Baccharis pilularis, Artemisia douglasiana, Arctostaphylos virgata, Arctostaphylos tomentosa, Arctostaphylos stanfordiana, Arctostaphylos regismontana, Arctostaphylos pallida, Arctostaphylos montaraensis, Arctostaphylos hookeri, Amsinckia menziesii, Amsinckia grandiflora, Alnus rubra, Allium serra, Allium lacunosum, Allium falcifolium, Allium campanulatum, Acmispon glaber, Acanthomintha lanceolata, Abronia maritima
For some reason, when I scraped the data to get the list above, it gave it to me in reverse alphabetical order. If you want to create or update a list article, a quick sort of the names in a text editor or Excel should be fairly easy and reduce your editing effort. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


...for sorting out the mess made by the creation of Infraspecific name (botany and mycology) via a move. I was about to ask an admin to deal with it when you did. (I think I've fixed the double redirect it left.) Not sure about which R templates to use on the redirect pages. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I think there are a few bots out there that come along to fix double redirects. And I suppose infraspecific name (botany and mycology) isn't exactly a realistic redirect, so I'll delete it. Rkitko (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Buddleja davidii 'Tobudviole' = Buzz Lavender[edit]

Hello Rkitko Maddening isn't it? I include the selling name in the title, reasoning that it is this name that most if not all enquirers of Wikipedia would use in their searches. The American nursery practice of grouping cultivars in series such as Lo & Behold is equally trying, but I include the series name to distinguish the plant from others of the same or similar cultivar name, eg. we have Buddleja davidii 'Peace', released in 1945, and now Buddleja (Flutterby series) 'Peace', raised by Pete Podaras circa 2012. As for adoption of the = symbol between registered cv. name and selling name, this is simply copying the practice of the Royal Botanic Gardens here in their accessions lists, possibly based on IPNI? Ptelea (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I copied your reply over to Talk:Buddleja davidii 'Tobudviole' = Buzz Lavender#Article title. It's probably best to keep the discussion in one place. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Calappa calappa[edit]

Try telling me things in your own words instead of just copypasting paragraphs from the MoS - stuff I already know. The degree of similarity between my source and my contribution to the article, calls for some degree of judgement, a quality in which you have shown yourself to be lacking. Your propensity for issuing threats, on the other hand, has not diminished with the passing of years.Paul venter (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:PLANTS progress graphic[edit]

In the graphic at File:WPPLANTS_article_assessment.png, do you remember whether "article" meant everything included in the total at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Plant articles by quality statistics, i.e. including categories, redirects, etc., or did it just mean articles (and perhaps lists)? I was curious about progress since the end of your graph. If you meant only articles, then today there are about 58,500, making the rate of progress about 14 a day since April 2009. If you meant all assessed pages, then today there are about 66,000, increasing the rate of progress to just under 18 a day, which seems quite impressive. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question. If I recall correctly, we weren't assessing categories and redirects in the initial assessment. When I scraped the numbers of assessed pages from the reports, I didn't have an easy way to sort out categories, redirects, and lists, so it should represent everything our project has added a {{WikiProject Plants}} banner to. If you want the spreadsheet, I can send it your way. Rkitko (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I've realized that comparison is difficult, because the way the assessment system worked has changed. However, Template:WikiProject_Plants/class was created in January 2009 and it did allow for classes such as categories, redirects, etc. So in April 2009, there would have been separate lines in the summary table for these classes, although I don't know if they had to be explicitly labelled in the WikiProject Plants template (they seem now picked up from the namespace if not given). I'd be interested to see the spreadsheet; I think you have my e-mail address from previous exchanges. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, it looks like 8 May 2009, just after I finished the graph, was the first Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Plant articles by quality statistics to incorporate the feature list and list assessment lines. And the 20 January 2010 update didn't have lines for SL, Book, Category, Disambig, File, Portal, Project, Redirect, Template. Since then, the bot has been updating the table at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Plant. The 4 January 2010 table in the bot's userspace does have a line for categories, of which WP:PLANTS had around 1300. It would appear that in the older project space table that the bot ignored WP:PLANTS items assessed as anything other than the traditional article assessments, e.g. it only filled out the lines for lists, stub, start, etc. Compare the numbers between the 20 January 2010 versions for the reduced table (project space) and the full table (user space). The exact difference between the totals in those two tables are the assessed items in the category, disambig, portal, project, template, and other lines. So no, I'm fairly certain that the numbers I used were just for lists and articles.
The spreadsheet isn't anything fancy or great, but I'll send it along anyway in case you care to update the graph :-) Rkitko (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure that we've corresponded by e-mail before. At least I can't find an archived e-mail among my messages. I'll send a quick introductory note now. Rkitko (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anomala (disambiguation)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Anomala (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:2DABS, direct hatnote is more helpful to readers in cases like this

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Tit-for-tats over Gasteria page[edit]

Rkitko, to avoid us going into an endless series of "undos" I think it'd help if you saw where the information on that page is coming from, as the writer gives his references in the "information sources" section of the site. Journals like Alsterworthia are pretty much as authoritative as you can get in this field. Also "Gasterias of South Africa, A new revision of a major succulent group by E. J. van Jaarsveld" is probably the best source you could ask for. Until those books are online themselves, in downloadable pdf (not any time soon I think) then the next best option for readable links are websites that use these books as their sources. So please stop trying to delete them. Abu Shawka (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Abu Shawka: It's still a self-published, user-generated source. The author of the blog is an HR employee of a power company in the Czech Republic. No where on the blog does he indicate he has credentials as an expert. He appears to be a well-traveled, self-taught horticulturalist, which is great, but it does not make his blog a source that Wikipedia can cite. It doesn't matter what sources his blog is citing -- that doesn't make his blog an acceptable or reliable source. You should directly cite the works that you describe above; limited access on your part is not an excuse for citing a source that may not be reliable. If you want to get your hands on these printed reliable sources, people at WP:PLANTS and WP:LIBRARY (the resource exchange), including myself, have been willing to request documents on other editor's behalf for the purpose of expanding articles on Wikipedia.
I think it's great that you've been working on these articles! There are so many areas where our plant articles are lacking, so anyone working on building them up is a great addition to the team. Anyway, the point here is that if a blog cites reliable sources that does not make the blog itself a reliable source. Go and find the original sources -- sometimes it takes a lot of work, but it's worth it. Wikipedia isn't meant to be an index of all the links you find relevant to the topic, whether it be a gallery or blog on the subject; see WP:ELNO, specifically number 11. If I can help you find the primary or secondary sources themselves in any way, I'll certainly try, but this blog cannot be a reference or external link. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sure of the relevance of this distinction between "blog" and "website". Some blogs are a lot more authoritative than most websites (as you can see from this case) and a lot mroe so than most "references" on wikipedia. (Jakub is VERY well known in the field by the way. He's an amateur, but a very knowledgeable one. The credentials in my opinion are in the sources of information in the field, not in the poor chap's day job which you seem to take issue with.)
But back to your insistence that any sources must be 100% first hand.. If any website, regardless of how authoritative and comprehensive its references are, is insufficient as a citation, unless written by the actual expert in the field (ie. the botanist him/herself) then I am skeptical that any articles can be written on these species - at least until the original papers by the likes of van Jaarsveld and Bayer are online. Work on these articles does unfortunately need to stop until then. (Out of interest, for references, does wikipedia also disqualify books which cite scientists in the field but aren't actually group-written by the various scientists in person?)
Also, now that I think about it, what nutty sort of botanist is going to have written anything that can be used for an introductory section on Gasterias in gardening? I didn't realise it, but it would feel a bit like trying to cite Stephen Hawking for a section on the basics of lab hygiene. Are we actually hoping to find something by Ingo, Bruyns or Bruce Bayer on the basics of Gasterias in cultivation? What sort of scientific paper are we supposed to find for the basic fact that "Gasterias can be propagated by seed"? Jakub's already vastly overqualified to give information on that topic. Please advise, as beginner wikipedians like myself are likely to drop this whole effort if we're pushed to observe such unnecessarily pedantic standards for self-evident gardening info. Abu Shawka (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
@Abu Shawka: There is no practical distinction between a blog and website; anyone can create a blog or website and present it in a way that may make some thing it is a reliable source. While it may be presented by a knowledgeable amateur botanist, his blog is still not a reliable source. Heck, I'm working on my PhD and have a blog (not updated recently), and while my work there is as accurate as I can make it with references on many posts, it won't be a reliable source for the purpose of Wikipedia and should never be cited here.
Perhaps I wasn't exactly clear -- I meant that you should find sources (secondary and tertiary sources are fine!) that aren't passed through the interpretation of an unreliable source. The information presented by Jakub on his blog could very well be accurate and correct, but I'm sure he paraphrased his sources, added his own original thoughts, and without those sources in front of us, we cannot tease apart what information came from the reliable sources and what came from Jakub. In citing his blog, you are not citing his sources by proxy, you are citing him. In evaluating whether his blog was a reliable source, I identified the author and noted that he's an amateur, not a professional botanist, which is why I mentioned his job. This has nothing to do with whether the Jaarsveld and Bayer works are online -- many reliable sources are not online but cited frequently by Wikipedia editors. The work on those species articles can continue, just with better references. It's important that you are able to determine what is and is not a reliable source. I would suggest you find copies of the Jaarsveld and Bayer works to paraphrase and cite in these articles.
I think it may also useful if you read WP:RS in full. The type of publication, the author, and the publisher can determine whether a source is reliable. For example, a few years ago there was a geneticist at a university who published a book on his ideas on evolution (some, admittedly, quite far out there) through a novelty press -- the kind where you pay money to have a book published. There was no review process by other academics. He then came to Wikipedia and tried to insert references to his book on many articles, but aside from the obvious conflict of interest, it was quite obvious from his publishing method that it could not be used as a reliable source.
As for your questions on how to go about finding sources for cultivation information I'd first like to mention that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and so far I haven't come across anything you've written that could be interpreted that way. It's good to describe the cultivation of these species without telling readers how to do it (e.g. "Keep temperatures above freezing or the root stock will die" or "do not water in the winter" would not be good prose for Wikipedia). I'm sure there are excellent sources out there that describe cultivation of Gasteria and Haworthia. The Jaarsveld book published by Timber Press actually seems to describe their cultivation quite well. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for explaining. I think the vast majority of wikipedia pages don't comply with your standards though - and almost none of mine do. If such strict "paper" academic standards are required for all references, then I'm afraid, as I said, work needs to stop on these articles. At least until we have some full-time botanists working on them, who have access to the original paper copies of the journals etc. Or at least until works by Bayer and van Jaarsveld are digitised online (I don't see why anyone would trust a reference to a book that cannot be read & checked online - I could site it without even having read it!). Til then I'm out of here. Abu Shawka (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
By the way, please do feel free to continue on where I'm leaving off. I was beginning to work my way through the Haworthias and Gasterias. Maybe just note that Haworthia's recently been split according to its subgenera (Hexanbgulares to Haworthiopsis etc.) so one needs to sort of bear in mind with the articles that the genus name's likely to change very soon. Unfortunately most of the species don't have common names that be used instead (often only in Afrikaans). Gasteria at least is sound and won't change any time soon.Abu Shawka (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
@Abu Shawka: Yes, Wikipedia is still a work in progress and many articles are substandard, but that doesn't mean we lower the standards. These are not my standards; they are the encyclopedia's. There are indeed good reliable sources that are online, but blogs are not usually among them. And as I said earlier, the criteria for inclusion of anything in an article is verifiability, meaning that sources do not need to be online; other editors are capable of obtaining the sources and checking our work. I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of referenced used in plant articles are inaccessible on the internet to most users, usually because they are unavailable or behind paywalls. Writing good encyclopedic articles isn't easy and can't be if we expect readers to trust our work, but it does not require full-time botanists; amateurs are just as capable of writing clear articles referenced by reliable sources (likewise, we don't require professional biographers to write biography articles here, but we do have reasonable standards on sources). My intent was to inform you of the relevant guidelines, not to encourage you to quit writing articles. I'm sorry that has been the result. Please do consider carrying on with your edits even if it does seem a bit more difficult now. As I mentioned, there are ways to help you obtain the sources you need to continue. You already know these plants better than me and it would be a shame if you didn't try a bit harder to write articles with the better sources mentioned here. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Well thanks for the info Rkitko. For my part, I still don't see the sense in the rules you cite (they also seem extremely impractical for the digital age of websites as sources of info) but I do understand that they're policy so I'll step down and concede you have a point. I will however leave the plant species articles to people like you though; as you do have the paper copies of the books I understand. As I said, I've done the Astrolobas, the robustipedunculares Haworthias and some of the gasterias already, so feel free to carry on where I'm leaving off. All the best. Abu Shawka (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for thoughts[edit]

Hi Ryan. I don't know how often you still come through here, but based on your revision history, its more often than I! :)

I've been toying with the idea of starting a List of trees of Senegal or just Trees of Senegal, and have started messing around in my sandbox. Before I invest too much time in populating the list, I wondered if you could take a look and give me your thoughts on:

  1. Is this kind of a list useful, or is there a better way to organize this information?
  2. The questions in the refs section.
  3. Is the current data in the list appropriate (if it were all reffed)? Would you default-hide any of the columns? Add any columns?
  4. Image size: I went with Mgiganteus1's model in List of Nepenthes... is that a standard and useful size?

I'd really appreciate it. (ps. did you know that I very recently spent two years living in North Annville? small world...) -NoahElhardt (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@NoahElhardt: Hi, Noah! It's great to hear from you. Indeed, a small world! Whatever were you doing in North Annville? I just passed through around Christmas on my way to eastern PA and had to stop in at MJ's coffeehouse.
I like the idea of your list of trees. Recently there was a CfD that upmerged a good number of "Trees of X" categories. I'm not particularly fond of the "Flora of X" categories subdivided by growth form and have suggested in the past that a comprehensive list by country/state/province would be more useful. I don't think anyone would have any issues with a list article on the trees of Senegal; it's certainly a topic worthy of inclusion. Do you have a sense of how large the list will be? If very large, then you can think of ways to organize it, but for now this seems like the best approach.
Ah, I'm afraid the ref you have wouldn't pass WP:RS now. I'm sure you were worried about that. It's a damn shame since, as you indicate, this information doesn't seem to have been published before. The situation seems ripe for a PhD study in ethnobotany, doesn't it?
I get the idea of providing the names in all languages, but some folks may suggest this is what interwiki links or WikiData is for now. I can't find an example of another list of flora that gives the names of plants in the native languages of the region, except those that have been incorporated into English more widely. That doesn't mean it wouldn't work, though. You could probably get away with it if there were fewer language columns. No need to default-hide anything, though. I can't think of any to add, either.
On image size, use what you think works best. I don't know of any standard, but smaller images give the narrowest rows and reduce the size of the overall list while still providing some detail.
Anyway, I hope all is well! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Moves of capitalized vernacular name titles[edit]

Hi Ritko, it looks like you're maybe active again for a bit. I was wondering if you would consider moving any of the remaining plants with capitalized vernacular titles to scientific names. The following are all of the plant articles currently with capitalized titles (though there may be some additional common name disambiguation pages with capitalization lurking out there):

Of these, moving Atlas Cedar, Columbia Lily, Crapnell's Camellia, Grantham's Camellia, Scarborough Lily really should not be controversial at all (scientific name has a higher Google hit count than "common" name). Fraser Fir is now the only Abies not at the scientific name. Coco de Mer, Job's Tears and St. Augustine Grass perhaps have enough notability outside of botany to stay at the common name (although we certainly have more notable species than these with scientific name titles).

I've included European Pear, Pacific Silverweed and Saigon Cinnamon in the list above for the sake of completeness, but I'm not quite sure that simply moving these three to scientific names is workable at present. Pyrus communis is arguably important enough to be at a common name title (but I think it's also arguable that the common name for this species is pear or perhaps common pear). There's a mess of synonyms with Pacific Silverweed, and I'm not sure what the correct scientific name is (the scientific name given in the taxobox, Argentina pacifica, is unresolved on TPL). And I have a reference in front of me that argues that cinnamon from Vietnam is actually Cinnamomum cassia, and that there is pervasive misidentification of Vietnamese cinnamon in the literature (with C. loureiroi being a rather rare species that is not exploited as a spice); if this is true it would be better to split Saigon cinnamon and C. loureiroi into separate articles. Plantdrew (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Some of these were on my list for move requests. In particular "Amazon Lily" is used by reliable sources for the genus Eucharis, plus there's known to be a lot of confusion over the names E. × grandiflora and E. amazonica – if "Amazon Lily" applies to one species it is the latter. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for collecting those titles. I'll work on the list of uncontroversial ones first and strike them here when done. I'll have to take a bit of time to investigate the others that you indicate might be controversial. In those cases it might be better to use the WP:RM process. If the outcome of the requested moves is to keep it at a vernacular name, I can at least move it to the lowercase title. Yep, I'm still around, but busy with other things, though I realized my conversion of taxoboxes to APG III was unfinished in the Ranunculales and then I kept finding instances of taxoboxes that had been changed back to using "Magnoliophyta" or worse, a mix of the two systems. I'll probably scale back the editing in a bit when I'm done with that current task. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok -- I made a start at a few and cleaned up where possible, but it would be great if you could double-check my work. I almost always forget the proper redirect templates (R from common name?) and sometimes miss a talk page assessment as redirect. And Peter indicated that Amazon Lily might be better off as a dab page, if I read his comment correctly. I'll give the others a go later. Rkitko (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
As for Argentina species, the taxonomy does appear to be a bit unsettled, but a few recent papers seem to support separation of the Argentina from Potentilla (e.g. Faghir et al., 2014; Dobes & Paule, 2010; and Sojak, 2010. There's a bit of info on this at the APG website as well. I think Argentina pacifica is an older name applied to coastal populations of Argentina anserina, though some recent publications do make a distinction between the two, and I can't find anything that explicitly says A. pacifica is a synonym of A. anserina. Not quite sure what to do with that one... It's a bit far afield from her/his specialty among Rosaceae, but perhaps User:Sminthopsis84 has some thoughts on this or has a better idea of the literature out there. Rkitko (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I've made some adjustments. See if you think Argentina pacifica is ready to be moved now. We now have much more usable material at species aggregate to help with this sort of situation. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Although I strongly prefer scientific names, I think that Coco de Mer and Job's Tears do meet our standards for the use of English names. (Although, according to the MOS, they should be at the decapitalized forms Coco de mer and Job's tears). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I can agree with leaving these at the vernacular name, but do note that there is also "double coconut" and "sea coconut" for Lodoicea (although "coco de mer" seems most commonly used). And C. lacryma-jobi is kind of an unusual case. To most English speakers, "Job's tears" is probably a source of beads. However, its most important overall as a food crop, where a variety of common names could come into play (e.g. for somebody speaking Philippine-English it's adlay). Plantdrew (talk)

Thanks for making these moves, Rkitko. I think the three I didn't call out specifically previously (i.e. Cretan Date Palm, Devil's Club, and Haleakalā Silversword) should also be uncontroversial moves to scientific name under WP:FLORA, but the scientific names don't quite pass a basic WP:GOOGLETEST (although restrict it to Google Books or Scholar and the situation changes). GOOGLETESTs are pretty flawed, but a good way to deal with the WP:COMMONNAME objections that tend to come up whenever a move to scientific name is contemplated. Plantdrew (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. I struck two more. I wouldn't be comfortable moving Devil's Club or Fraser fir to the scientific name without a discussion. Both are more commonly used in Google Books and Scholar at the vernacular name. (By the way, experience has taught me it's not much fun to walk into a thicket of Oplopanax horridus.) I would support such moves, but don't feel I should do it unilaterally. I haven't looked at the others yet but will soon. Rkitko (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Two more, European Pear and Pacific Silverweed have been moved. Thanks to Sminthopsis84 for cleaning up Argentina pacifica in preparation for the move. Much appreciated! Rkitko (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Also moved Coco de Mer to Lodoicea. It passed a google test in Books and Scholar. The multiple common names make it difficult to pin down one among many. Rkitko (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Amazon lily[edit]

My feeling is that when a common name is used, as this is, for a genus as a whole as well as more particularly for some of the species within the genus, a dab isn't needed – just a redirect to the genus article, where the usage can be discussed. However, I don't mind either way if others feel that a dab list is better. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you've handled it well at Eucharis (plant) Plantdrew (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Redirecting to the genus works well. Rkitko (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Canary grass[edit]

Canary grass seems to be used as the name for the genus Phalaris as a whole, and as part of the name of many of its species as well as Phalaris canariensis. So I think that Canary grass should be moved to Phalaris canariensis and the English name made a redirect to Phalaris as per the Eucharis example above. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

And a couple more[edit]

Timothy-grass could be Phleum or Phleum pratense, but I'm pretty ambivalent about any potential move. Salak could be Salacca or Salacca zalacca. The Thai and Malay Wikipedia articles linked from Salak/Salacca zalacca have a taxobox image that I have a hard time believing is the same species depicted on en.Wiki's Salak. I suspect any local names in Southeast Asia (that lack a qualifying adjective) refer to the genus rather than the species.


Plantdrew (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Different reason for a move[edit]

Meadow Brome (a set index article) and Meadow brome (a redirect to it) need to be swapped in accordance with MOS guidance on capitalizing the English names of species. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. I'll get to the others above in a bit. Rkitko (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit on my article[edit]


I'm curious as to why you changed some parts of the classification on Brachyscome angustifolia to "(unranked)". Why change a detailed system to a less specific one? --Biblioworm 23:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Biblioworm: For plant articles, we use the most recent widely-recognized classification available, the APG III system, which uses informally named clades above the rank of order for the higher level classification of flowering plants. The old concepts and classification schemes that used Magnoliopsida are out of date and include circumscriptions now rejected in light of molecular studies on relationships among flowering plants. There is no clearly defined circumscription of Magnoliopsida that would be appropriate yet. At the same time APG III was published in 2009, a classification based on that study established ranked names for these terms. For example, angiosperms (APG III) is equivalent to Magnoliidae sensu Chase & Reveal, but this system with these names hasn't won wide acceptance yet, as far as I can tell, so consensus continues to be that we use the APG III system for the higher clades in flowering plant taxoboxes. (As an aside, it should be mentioned that botanists overwhelmingly use, at least for non-fossil taxa, division (divisio) and not phylum.) Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I was always taught to use the old classification system (not to mention that I'm not especially knowledgeable about plants), so I still don't fully understand. I suppose that you know what you're doing though, so I'll just leave it. Thanks, --Biblioworm 00:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


User:Look2See1 continues to add massive lists of country-based categories to plant and other articles. His/her talk page archives show constant complaints about over-categorization, but no sign of any change of behaviour. I revert when the article is on my watchlist, but regularly come across others that have been treated in this way. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I know and I'm at a loss of what to do. I haven't been able to gauge whether the continued abuse of categories is willful ignorance or if s/he understands but doesn't care. Such edits are disruptive in my opinion and there's a pattern of behavior with little communication, but I haven't wanted to bring any complaint forward for admin intervention because Look2See1 would probably be seen as "mostly harmless" and there would be no resolution. Perhaps I'm a pessimist, though, so if you think it might be a worthwhile exercise we could give it a go to seek some kind change in behavior since asking on the talk page doesn't seem to get noticed. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
If these were additions to articles, then I'd be confident that there's enough evidence for some action. But the reality seems to be that there simply isn't the interest in maintaining the quality of categorization. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Angiosperm Phylogeny Group[edit]

I don't know if this is how to talk with you or who you are but I am the one who keeps getting reverted. I suggested editing what I did instead of simply erasing and got reply. Bear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talkcontribs)

Closing on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 26#Category:Orchids of Austria[edit]

I read that long discussion to do the close. Previous discussions have established some differences for how we categorize in this area. Basically if it is alive we categorize by continent and if it is a physical feature we can use the country it is in. I understand that these plants are described in the various sources many by convention describe these as being within a country, but the purpose of the classification system here is to support the readers and not necessarily to use other groups methods of classification. I have seen many plant articles and they, in my opinion clearly address this issue by covering the range of the plant, quite often in the first paragraph. Also remember that categories are not the only solution. Lists and templates are better suited in some cases and I believe that at least one editor mentioned this in the discussion. I still believe that the points made with the support of previous decisions, and out policies and guidelines made the stronger case. At least we agree that this discussion needed to be closed after 3 months. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

RE: Drosera categories[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rkitko. You have new messages at Sarr Cat's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rkitko. You have new messages at Sarr Cat's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Distribution of Eremurus robustus[edit]

WCSP here says "C. Asia 32 KAZ KGZ TZK UZB", which is more than you left at Eremurus robustus, but considerably less than you correctly removed. "32" is "Middle Asia", although this includes TKM (Turkmenistan) which isn't in the WCSP distribution. So should it be categorized under the four countries (the Level 3 codes) or at the regional level (Category:Flora of Middle Asia)? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I've never seen GRIN and WCSP disagree like that before. I suppose leaving just Category:Flora of Central Asia would be ok. It still accurately describes the distribution, much like using Category:Flora of Northern Europe when a plant is found in all but Iceland. Thanks for catching that. I'll go ahead and change it. Rkitko (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Redirect species to genus?[edit]

Hi, I saw that you had recently deleted the redirect Lepturus repens with the note "bad redirect -- we don't redirect species to a genus article." I thought we did do that, or at least I've seen many of them, and I'm afraid I've done it more than a few times. My thinking was that it's helpful to the reader to get some information from the genus article even if we don't have specific information about the species. Is there a guidance on such questions somewhere? Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: Yes, generally there's no reason to redirect a species article to its genus article, primarily because the genus article doesn't provide much information on the topic of the species (WP:R#DELETE item 10). The only time we redirect a species to a genus is when that genus is monotypic (WP:MONOTYPICFLORA). Red links invite users to create a new article on that species; a blue redirect to the genus creates the false impression that we already have an article that comprehensively covers that topic. From WP:REDDEAL: "The red link may identify a need to create a redirect to another article, but only if that article comprehensively deals with the topic." That's almost never the case when you redirect a species to a genus; the genus article will give some minor context, but it's never comprehensive. A red link is more likely to be turned into a new article on the subject than a blue redirect link. If you happen to find many of these clustered in certain organism groups, it might be worthwhile to approach the associated WikiProject for guidance. It's certainly possible that the editors involved have a different philosophy or interpretation of the guidelines and there may be a good reason I've missed to do this, but I can't think of one at the moment. You can always nominate such redirects for deletion at WP:RFD. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Rkitko: Thanks for your complete and well referenced answer. I will change my practice and go back over the redirects I've created recently (at least) and see if I can fix the ones I've done wrong. Keep up the good work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  14:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Chemical (data page)[edit]

We met at Talk:Morphine (data page). I'm here to note that your contributions there are useful & interesting, but that page might/will be deleted soon for other reason.

Indeed those "... (data page)" articles are not ideal wiki pages. And also, as you said, this better be discussed for general at {{Chembox}} (or WT:CHEMISTRY). WT:MEDICINE had a great talk about {{Authority control}} recently. Will see that appearing. Meanwhile, we'll have those two bad Redirects out asap.

BTW, what does it say about one's character when one is interested in carnivorous plants? Does that make extra friends? If yes, what kind of? -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@DePiep: Thanks, again, for bringing my attention back to the talk page. You're right that some of the other points I raised would be better discussed elsewhere, so I opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Data pages. I'd appreciate your input there if you have a moment. Thanks for taking the discussion to the logical conclusion and bringing that redirect to RfD.
That's an interesting set of questions... There's a small community of people interested in carnivorous plants, all with different levels of expertise. If you know anything at all about orchid societies, you can overlay that understanding onto a carnivorous plant society but on a much smaller scale. There's horticultural interest, conservation concerns, and academic research. I'm not sure what it says of my character, other than I'm a bit odd. Rkitko (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep: I forgot to mention earlier re: {{Authority control}}... The Tree of Life projects have been experimenting with using {{TaxonIds}} in the external links section. It may be a better comparison than authority control for discussions with the medicine and chemistry projects. I forgot about it earlier until I ran across an example just now. It's not in wide use yet, but there are similarities to the needs of other projects, especially with links to places like NCBI, etc. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for noting. Is Tree of Life a WP project? Anyway, {{Chembox}} is so outdated we're working by incidents, now. I think CAS RN should be 1. showed by a regular el, and 2. should be moved to AC. -DePiep (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Glad to know someone's on top of it :-) Yes, sorry I didn't link it: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. It's more of an umbrella group for all the animal, plant, fungi, protist, bacteria, viruses, etc. projects so there's not much activity on the page. Some discussions involve all organism articles, so we often bring broader discussions there. Rkitko (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Naah, not because I am against something, but the bio chems are not chemistry, so far. Today I'm breaking my head over drug--chem infoboxes interaction. -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Morphine (data page) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Morphine (data page). Since you had some involvement with the Morphine (data page) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.

Data pages[edit]

Fascinating discussion over at the Chemistry project. I have nothing useful to add there, but your comment about galleries got me thinking - do we need a Data: namespace, or some other organised way of storing supplemental information? Sure, Wikidata should be the place for that kind of thing, but it isn't and it never will be. Wikiquote, similarly, could be, but I doubt they would be interested in structured data about chemical elements or, for that matter, species. (Again, that could be in Wikispecies, but it won't.) I could see the equivalent sort of 'data page' for species articles - everything from xylem flow data to predation studies. Guettarda (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Guettarda: That's an interesting thought and I wonder how broad the need for such a namespace could be. I do think, though, that Wikipedia is not the place for such material, given WP:RAWDATA (especially point #3). Wikispecies was once a new sister project; perhaps there's a need for another. I'm still trying to work out exactly where I'd like to see this kind of data, but you make an interesting point regarding data on species. I'm leaning more toward a view where the judicious selection and summation of data, whether it be for chemicals, elections, or species, is a much better choice than providing too much data. Come to think of it, I can't think of any kind of data I wouldn't want to see summarized in clear prose for species, such as tensile strength of wood or pollination and germination success rates. Chemistry appears to be a special case since there are just so many properties of those chemicals, e.g. solubility in endless solvents. Rkitko (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rkitko. You have new messages at Hamamelis's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Georg Andreas Agricola[edit]

Hi Rkitko,

I appreciate your efforts at Georg Andreas Agricola. But the link is to a subscription database. If you have access to that database, it will lead to the page that is related to the book. I know that it cannot be verified, but the link is from Gale's onw generated subsription. The links on the Worldcat page, that was there previously, do not work, in that they do not lead the page related to the book when one does have access to the database.


Landwirtschaft562 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landwirtschaft562 (talkcontribs) 17:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Landwirtschaft562: See WP:ELNO #6, there should be no external links to services that require a subscription to view it. There's no way for me without a subscription to determine if the link is correct. It's not useful to readers. Rkitko (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I've simply assembled a bib. If you are subsribed to these databases, you can view the work. I don't like the fact that the work is available in the database and is not noted in this bibliography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landwirtschaft562 (talkcontribs) 11:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Landwirtschaft562: Oh, believe me when I say that I understand the impulse to provide a complete set of links, but the important thing is the bibliography. Not every item in the bibliography needs a link, especially one that is of no use to the vast majority of our readers. You see, the work is unavailable to anyone without a subscription, so while you find it useful, Wikipedia is not the place for such links. Again, see WP:ELNO. Please do not add it back again. Since you have access to the document, if you have the time why not provide a transcription in Wikisource? The copyright has surely expired. You could then link to a source anyone can view. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

WGSRPD question[edit]

If we're using the WGSRPD categories for the distribution of plants it seems to me that Category:Flora of Galápagos should not be a subcategory of Category:Flora of Ecuador, since, as the preamble to the latter correctly says, the WGSRPD treats the Galápagos as distinct from mainland Ecuador: 83 Western South America includes BOL Bolivia, CLM Colombia, ECU Ecuador, GAL Galápagos and PER Peru. What do you think?

(To give some context, I've created and am expanding Cordia lutea. It's found in both the Galápagos and mainland Ecuador, but not in enough of Western South America to categorize there. So I was going to add both Category:Flora of Galápagos and Category:Flora of Ecuador, but this would be wrong at present, because the first is a subcategory of the second.)

Peter coxhead (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to remove Category:Flora of Ecuador from Category:Flora of Galápagos. That appears to be a remnant of the political affiliations that used to link Category:Flora of Greenland to Category:Flora of Denmark, for example. In truth, I haven't yet swung through the South American categories to check for WGSRPD compliance. There's quite a bit of work to do there, so I've left it for a day when I have some time and the necessary level of concentration. I'll make the maps eventually for the regional categories. I'm still constantly discouraged by the activity at CfD that sees fauna categories being upmerged to continent categories. Rkitko (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Yes, there's no consistency in how categories for organisms are handled. On the one hand, we have a few enthusiastic editors creating literally hundreds of low level categories and being resistant to reason; on the other hand, we have animal editors arguing that as animals move around, only very high level categories make sense. However, for plants we have the advantage of the WGSRPD system. We should probably say a bit more about it at a WP:PLANTS subpage and try to get WP:PLANTS members, at least, behind it. I'll make the Galápagos/Ecuador change, as I am working on Galápagos plants I recently photographed there. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way, as you'll probably see, I've added a table giving down to Level 2 (regions) to the WGSRPD article. I think this is useful. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Nice work. I wondered how much we could reproduce there that wouldn't be considered a copyvio, but it looks like you struck a nice balance. Rkitko (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

WGSRPD name inconsistencies[edit]

The discussion over renaming the northern and southern America categories doesn't look very promising, so maybe it's not worth pursuing others, but the following are inconsistent with the WGSRPD names and with other categories. (I've ignored "U.S.A." versus "United States", which is ok, I think.)

Actual – WGSRPD

Yeah, I've known about a few of these -- many of the categories already existed before I began trying to align them to the WGSRPD. I'm not so inflexible that I think we should move the Central Europe category to Middle Europe. The names aren't as important as the clear circumscription. And Central Europe is the topic article, which categories normally follow when being named. That said, I think the Northern/North America difference was large enough to start a discussion, since the circumscriptions would be far removed from what people normally think of as North and South America. East/Eastern Asia is another where the difference might be large enough to bring it up for discussion, but our article is at East Asia with a wildly different circumscription. At this point, I'm really just hoping the editors obsessed with WP:NONDEF don't set their sights on flora categories after they're done with the fauna ones at CfD... Rkitko (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The names aren't as important as the clear circumscription – true, and certainly the capitalization isn't important, but as you noted in the category rename discussion, the current names are seriously misleading in a few cases. Sigh...
Thus Category:Flora of East Asia has actually been used for "East Asia" and not "Eastern Asia". Just to take one example. Hemerocallis citrina is distributed in "31 AMU PRM 36 CHC CHI CHN CHS 38 JAP KOR" according to the WCSP entry. But the only distribution category given is "Flora of East Asia", whereas actually it's found in three WGSRPD "continents". Peter coxhead (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)